Two HMOs, no parking survey, opposite outcomes.

Two decisions, one gap

Neither property had any off-street parking. Both councils refused partly on parking and highway safety grounds. Neither appeal file contained a parking stress survey of the kind most authorities now expect.

It would be wrong to attribute the difference to the approach of individual inspectors. The more convincing explanation is that each inspector considered which party needed the evidence, and found it absent from that party's case.

Hebburn: allowed

South Tyneside's parking standards called for one space per five units for residents and the same again for visitors. The scheme offered none, so it did not meet the standard. The inspector did not treat that as the end of the matter.

Three factors were material to the decision. First, the change was small: a five-bedroom house can already hold a large family, so a six-person HMO was not a significant increase in occupation (paragraph 14). Second, the location was accessible, with shops on Station Road, buses on Victoria Road East and Hebburn Metro within walking distance (paragraph 19). Third, parking was already restricted on the main road outside, so the scheme could not add pressure there or affect the nearby junction (paragraph 21).

The inspector accepted that residents in the surrounding terraces rely on the street and back lanes, and took their concerns into account. But no parking survey had been provided to show how serious the problem was (paragraph 23). Without that, harm could not be found. A condition required covered, secure cycle parking for seven bikes before occupation.

One detail is worth noting for anyone citing policy. It is an early example of an inspector applying the August 2026 Framework, with the presumption in favour of sustainable development now found in policies S3 and S4.

Barnet: dismissed

Colney Hatch Lane is a curving, dualled road on the approach to a busy North Circular interchange. The inspector found that parking outside the house was unlikely to be realistic or safe, so demand would move into the narrower residential side streets (paragraph 17). The site has a PTAL of 2 and is not in a controlled parking zone.

Barnet's Local Plan policy TRC03 points expressly to the Lambeth methodology for parking surveys. The appellant instead relied on observations at three times over two weeks, finding spare space on the Colney Hatch Lane frontage. That capacity was not quantified, the methodology was not followed, and the side streets where occupiers would actually park were not covered (paragraph 20).

On the site visit, the inspector found spare capacity in those streets to be limited and pavement parking common, with obvious risks for pedestrians (paragraph 21). Up to three independent households in a three-bedroom house would likely generate more demand than one family (paragraph 19). Without a Lambeth-style survey, the harm could not be ruled out, contrary to policy TRC03 and London Plan policies T4 and T6.1.

For completeness, parking was not the only reason. The inspector also found no demonstrated need for the HMO and a conflict with Barnet's policy protecting family housing. The parking finding stands on its own reasoning, however, and is the one most project teams will meet.

Why the gap cut both ways

There is no formal burden of proof in a planning appeal. In practice, though, an inspector needs some evidence before finding harm, and some evidence before ruling it out. These two cases show what decides which of those applies.

1. What the local policy asks for. Barnet's plan names the Lambeth methodology, so an applicant who does not use it is at a disadvantage. South Tyneside's policy asks only for adequate provision, which left room for a judgement based on accessibility and the scale of change.
2. How big the change is. A change from a five-bedroom house to a six-person HMO involves little increase in occupation. Three bedrooms to three independent households is a real change in how many cars might arrive.
3. Where the cars would actually go. In Hebburn, restrictions removed the most sensitive frontage from the equation. In Barnet, parking on the frontage was found to be unrealistic and unsafe, which would displace demand into side streets that had not been surveyed.
4. What the inspector saw. In Barnet, the site visit filled the gap with visible pavement parking. In Hebburn, nothing seen on the day pointed to harm. As at Colne, in the absence of survey evidence the inspector's own observations assumed particular importance.

On this reading, a gap in the evidence tells against whichever party the circumstances require to address it. That will not always be the council.

What to take into the next HMO

• Read the local plan first. If it names a survey method, use that method. Observations in its place will not do.
• Survey where occupiers will actually park. That is usually the side streets within a reasonable walk, not just the frontage.
• Compare against the lawful baseline. Set out the number of bedrooms and the likely occupation now, and show how small or large the change really is.
• Map the restrictions. Yellow lines, permit zones and bus stops can remove a frontage from the argument entirely, either way.
• Make the accessibility case properly. Walking distances to shops, bus stops and rail or Metro stations did real work in Hebburn. Offer secure cycle parking.
• For councils and objectors: residents' concerns are material, but survey evidence is likely to carry greater weight. If parking is a reason for refusal, be ready to show the stress, not just assert it.